The research seems to be about how language use that the student deems to be transphobic spreads and evolves within a speech community. So one super important thing the student needs to do is define transphobic language. We don’t have to agree with whatever definition they come up with to be able to follow and understand the research. That definition does need to make logical sense and also be workable.
But surely it goes beyond just defining transphobic language or agreeing or disagreeing. Given the premise of the dissertation that the words and phrases used by MN FWR posters are (already) judged to be transphobic, words and phrases made by anonymous forum users, this definitely implies Eden’s judgement of motivation that is being attributed to the poster. That’s an analytical slippery slope, which would be interesting to hear/read in terms of explaining and justifying methodology. How do you attribute motivation? Unless the poster has said "I hate these [insert group] people", how does one infer intent?
This is what would’ve been interesting to hear about had the seminar gone ahead. Whereas now presumably the complaint bandied about the Aston FL staff lounge is that the seminar had to be cancelled because of the bitchy women of MN who would’ve been horrible to Eden.